[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [registrars] NC representatives

Here we go. So, we have the two main CORE activists 'representing' us on the
Names Council. We 'elected' them for an interim period. CORE benefits from
the endless extension of the 'Testbed'.
Personally, I have had no 'representation' or feedback from Ken or Amadeu. I
have no idea what is going on in the NC. There has been no discussion of
Registrar Constituency business.
You argument that the interim election was based on the 'assumption that
there would be many new Registrars' is not accurate. How can it be. The
Registrar constituency comprises all pre-accredited Registrars, so the pool
is as big as it is going to be in the near future.
I think it would be wrong to allow the Registrar constituency to go forward
with these two representatives unchallenged.
Are we a Registrar constituency or are we a CORE constituency?
I call for elections before the end of the 90 day period. More than that,
lets have an actual discussion of what we are doing and what we want from
the process.
Further, I will stand for election in order to allow full and open

> For those of you who were around in the beginning, we had
> originally agreed to a schedule of new elections of Names
> Council representatives from the Registrar Constituency,
> 90 days after the completion of the testbed.  This was based
> on the assumption that there would be many new Registrars
> once the testing was completed, and many of the hurdles to
> becoming operational were removed.  With many more members,
> it would make sense to hold new elections to make sure that
> the much larger constituency had broad representation.
> Now that we are on our 2nd extension (to be once again
> extended?) this schedule has obviously been pushed back
> quite a bit.  There is now pressure on ICANN to have the
> Supporting Organization elected ICANN directors in place in a 
> very short period of time.  In order for this to happen,
> the preliminary Names Council, should become the Names
> Council by putting in fully elected representatives.  (Some
> of the constituencies did not have elections, but simply
> selected candidates.)
> While we did have elections, these were meant to be for the
> preliminary Names Council (or the transition period NC.)  I would 
> like to ask the group whether or not they feel we should have
> new elections, despite the fact that we are still in the testbed
> phase?  I personally feel that Ken and Amadeu are doing a fine
> job, and I hope that I have been as able as they are, to represent
> your interests.  However, I do feel that we should address this
> issue, as it will likely be brought up during the Santiago
> meetings.
> Best regards,
> Richard
> PS - is the testbed over???
> -- 
> _/_/_/interQ Incorporated
> _/_/_/System Division
> _/_/_/Director and General Manager
> _/_/_/Richard A. S. Lindsay